This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2013.
Denis Lebel Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends the Canada Transportation Act to require a railway company, on a shipper’s request, to make the shipper an offer to enter into a contract respecting the manner in which the railway company must fulfil its service obligations to the shipper. It also creates an arbitration process to establish the terms of such a contract if the shipper and the railway company are unable to agree on them. The enactment also amends provisions related to air transportation to streamline internal processes and certain administrative provisions of that Act.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-52s:
Fair Rail Freight Service ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
There is a conversation going on at a fairly loud level. Could I ask members who want to have a conversation to take it outside into the lobby? I am having a hard time hearing the member.
The hon. member for Wascana.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, thank you for attempting to regain a little order. It is much appreciated.
What I was saying was that there is significant disappointment, not just in the House but in the shipping community. The legislation does not fully achieve the objectives that the shipping community had been hoping for. They have been waiting for this legislation for a long time.
The debate about level of service agreements in the country began in 2006-2007. Before that period of time, the focus was on costing agreements and the level of freight rates and whether or not farmers and other shippers were receiving the full value that they thought they should receive. The argument was all about having costing reviews and the timeliness of costing reviews, what revenue was raised by freight rates and how it was shared or not shared across the entire continuum, from the shipper to the port and ultimately to export destinations.
In 2006-2007, the focus really zeroed right in on the issue of level of service agreements. That is when this debate really began.
The government took a while to think about that, but in 2008, the government said it agreed that there was a legitimate issue, that service levels might well be deficient and there ought to be a review of the level of service provided by the railways to the various shippers.
I should make the point that we are not talking here about just the agricultural sector. As large and as important as the agricultural sector is, the shipper community includes those who move virtually anything by rail. It includes the forestry sector, the chemicals sector, the fertilizer sector, mines and minerals, and manufactured goods. It is a broad cross-section of those who rely upon our railway system. They made the general complaint that they thought the services they were getting were in fact deficient.
As I said, the government agreed in principle, but there was an issue here, starting in 2008, and it said it would have a formal review. That review panel was appointed in the fall of 2009. It got to work pretty quickly and completed its work in about a year. It finished its report in the fall of 2010. The report was officially published at the beginning of 2011 and by about March, the government said it accepted the report of the review panel and that it intended to implement the report.
The panel essentially said that the marketplace for transportation services was basically a non-competitive marketplace, that there was not a fair balance between the shippers on one side and the railways on the other and that there was indeed an imbalance of market power that was biased in favour of the railways. That report of the review panel appointed by the government came out at the beginning of 2011.
In March of 2011 the government said that it essentially accepted that principle and that it would do something about it. The discussion continued to go on without a specific proposal from the government. In fact, it referred the whole matter back to another review process, chaired by Mr. Jim Dinning from Alberta. He was not able to move the yardsticks any further in trying to reach consensus between the railways and the shippers, so the process dragged on through 2011 and through 2012. By the end of 2012, in December of last year, the government finally tabled legislation. We are now halfway through 2013.
I would just remind the House that this whole process began in 2007. It has been a long time, and the shippers have waited patiently for legislation that they hoped would address their concerns. Unfortunately, they are disappointed. They find this legislation to be deficient.
The shippers essentially wanted four things in the legislation. First, they wanted in legislation the enshrined right that they would be entitled to an enforceable level of service agreement with the railways. That was number one.
Number two, they wanted the legislation to lay out what constitutes the basic services that the railways are to provide and how performance or non-performance would be measured. That was their second request. They wanted some clarity and some specificity about what constitutes service and how it is measured.
Number three, they wanted it very clear that if there were a breakdown somehow in the system, if the level of service that they contracted for was not in fact delivered as promised, then they would be entitled to recoup damages for the deficient service that they were delivered.
I would note that the review panel had reported, when it examined all of the anecdotes presented by shippers, that the typical agricultural shipper in western Canada could expect to get exactly what it ordered from the railways only 50% of the time. That is a pretty compelling statistic. If we can count on the transportation we have ordered to deliver only 50% of the time, we have a big problem if we are relying upon the railways to actually perform in that manner. Obviously the situation was serious and the shippers wanted the opportunity to recoup damages. They hoped they would not have to do that, but they wanted the opportunity to recoup damages if in fact the level of service fell below what was expected.
Finally, the fourth element was the dispute resolution mechanism.
The right to have a level of service agreement was point number one. They could negotiate that. If the negotiations were not successful, then it would be referred by arbitration to the Canadian Transportation Agency and the agency would impose an arbitrated agreement. That actually is in the law and that is a good part of Bill C-52. It is the other elements of the ask that are missing. The clarity with respect to the definition of what services are to be provided and the consequences if the level of performance falls short. In other words, the ability by the shippers to recoup damages.
Those two things, the clarity of the definition and the ability to recover damages, are not in Bill C-52. Those are the two primary reasons why the shipping community feels that this legislation is deficient.
The government's answer with respect to the definition of level of service is that it is just going to rely upon the traditional language that has been in the Canadian Transportation Act for 40 or 50 years and it does not need to upgrade that language or make it any more specific to satisfy the concerns of shippers. I think quite frankly that the government is going to find out that this is a false conclusion on its part. The definition in the act is what has caused the problem in many ways over the last number of years. It is not clear. It is like nailing Jello to the wall. To simply say, “we're going to carry on with those same definitions of service levels in the future and cross our fingers and hope for the best”, the government, the shippers and the railways are going to be disappointed. The language has proven to be deficient in the past and the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
We are not going to get a different result, so the definition in this legislation is not adequate to change the water on the beam, to solve the problem that the shippers have been complaining about and that the government's own review panel concluded was in fact a legitimate problem and that the shippers were not crying wolf.
Second, on the issue of enforcement, what happens when the level of service turns out to be deficient and it does not measure up to the standards that the shippers have every right to expect? The government's answer is not to give the shippers damages. The government's answer is to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties, in layman's language, fines for railway substandard performance. Some might think that is a kind of penalty and enforcement mechanism, would that not work? The problem is the fine goes to the government. It goes into the general revenue fund.
It simply becomes an additional revenue source for the treasury of the Government of Canada and bears no relationship whatsoever to the transportation problem out in the field. What the shippers need is the ability to recover damages. If a shipment is not delivered on time and it misses a customer or a market, that is a monetary penalty that shippers have to pay. They lose income, lose profit and incur added costs because the transportation system has failed them.
It does them no good whatsoever to say we will slap the railways on the wrist and they will pay a fine to the government. That does not move an extra bushel of wheat, that does not move an extra tonne of lumber. All it does is transfer a bit of money from the railways to the government. Meanwhile, the shipper is stuck with the same problem: deficient service for which there is no remedy because they cannot recover damages unless they go through the elaborate process of going to court.
We just had a discussion about small shippers and the disadvantages they have. The railways have deeper pockets for the lawyers in the court process than the shippers have and, undoubtedly, that imbalance will continue to function in favour of the railways and to the disadvantage of the shippers.
Probably the greatest illustration of the discrepancy remains on the playing field. Remember, the panel said the original problem was a lack of balance on the playing field. It was tilted in favour of the railways and the shippers were largely in a captive market situation. They were not in a position to find some other railway to move their product and they were not in a position to enforce their legal rights because they did not have the legal rights, so they were stuck in a disadvantageous position.
Perhaps the greatest illustration of that discrepancy is the fact that railways can, and always have been able to, level unilateral demurrage charges against the shipper if the shipper fails to deliver their side of the bargain on time or in the way the railways had expected. The railways can extract a cash penalty from a shipper called demurrage if the shipper falls down on its obligations, but on the flip side of the equation, the shipper does not have the ability to recover a cash penalty or cash damages from the railways if the railways fail to perform. Therefore, the railways have the power to punish the shippers, but the shippers do not have the power to punish the railways. That is a classic illustration of the fundamental market imbalance that exists in this situation and the imbalance that the shippers had hoped would finally be rectified by this new legislation.
Those are the fundamental problems. The legislation creates, to a certain extent, some steps forward. There will be a legislated right on the part of all shippers to have level of service agreements with the relevant railways. They can first try to negotiate those agreements and if the negotiations succeed, great. Everybody hopes that is the way it will work, that they will not need recourse to the legislative and regulatory framework so that the parties will be able to work out a deal. However, if the shipper is not able to successfully conclude an agreement with the railways, the legislation takes an additional step, which is good, in saying that the shipper can then to go to the Canadian Transportation Agency and get an arbitrated settlement from the agency. Those steps in the legislation are positive steps forward.
However, let me repeat that where it falls down is in the language that is in the act or, more accurately, that is not in the act defining what “level of service” means. The same vague old language is being used that has been there for decades and that vague old language is part of the problem. There needs to be greater clarity about what constitutes level of service and the way level of service is measured. The second major deficiency is that when there is a failure to perform on the part of the railways, there is no ability on the part of the shipper to go to the Canadian Transportation Agency through some form of dispute settlement process and obtain liquidated damages to address the practical problem that the shipper has, that their goods are not moving because the railways have failed to perform.
Paying a penalty to the government does not do the shipper any good. The money is in the pocket of the government, not in the pocket of the shipper and the shipper is the one that has experienced the problem.
Those are the issues that were discussed at committee. Those are the issues that members of this House, both in committee and otherwise, have discussed with the shipping community across the country. They say that, because of the legal provision in Bill C-52 that would create the right to have a level of service agreement, the legislation is a step forward. It is, as they put it to me both verbally and in writing, better than nothing. They would like substantially more, but it is better than nothing.
On that basis, that it is some small improvement over what has existed in the past, Liberals will be reluctantly supporting this legislation. We would prefer to have it vastly improved. There still is an opportunity to do that. The parliamentary process is not yet complete.
Hopefully before it is complete and before this legislation is given royal assent, the government will have the opportunity to reflect on those two key points. First, a more effective definition of level of service and the way it is measured; second, the way proper service is enforced by the railways, by giving the rights to the shippers to have liquidated damages, as opposed to just a penalty paid to the government.
If the government would change those two things, the shipper community members would be a lot more satisfied with this legislation than they are today. I think all of us are reluctantly accepting it the way it stands, but the government will find it will be revisiting this issue in a year or two.
There is a statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act in the year 2015. This is going to come back again, because this time the government has not seized the opportunity to do it right, the way it should have.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-52 only applies to new agreements. Contract breaches and service interruptions are often related to existing agreements. The shippers have no recourse and they suffer financial losses. Sometimes these losses also cause job losses. If the crops are just waiting and are not sold, there are repercussions for the economy.
The bill is incomplete and it is imperfect. Perfection is difficult to attain. Still, the bill does not in any way reflect the six recommendations the shippers made in their testimony to the committee.
What does the hon. member think of the serious effect this has on the shippers' quality of life and Canada's economy?
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, questions about existing service agreements between some shippers, certainly not nearly all of them, but some have over the last number of years been able to negotiate some kinds of confidential contracts with the railways to deal with their level of service. Those contracts are confidential between the railway and the shipper and their content, in terms of how effectively they deal with the service issues between the two parties, is not a matter that is on the public record.
However, the hon. member is correct to say that in those cases where a service agreement, such as it is, exists at the moment, the shipper is not entitled to refer the matter to the CTA unless and until that existing confidential contract expires. This may mean that some shippers might have to wait for some period of time before they would have access to the arbitration process.
We asked a number of questions in the committee about the existence of these pre-existing confidential contracts between some shippers and some railways. We were told that there were not very many of them and they were all pretty well of short duration. That was the testimony before the committee by the parties directly involved. We were given to understand that this was not a large problem.
However, if in fact there turn out to be more of these confidential agreements already existing than we were led to believe there were and if they are of longer duration, five or ten years rather than one or two, then I think there will be a problem with the legislation because a significant number of shippers would then be excluded from the right to have arbitration for some considerable length of time.
However, according to the shippers themselves, when we asked them the question on how many of these agreements existed now and how long they lasted, there were not very many of them and they did not last very long. That was the testimony they gave before the committee.
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather hypocritical of my Liberal colleague to come to the defence of improved rail service in Canada when we know that it was the Liberal Party that helped create the current crisis by privatizing CN in 1995, without any protective measures for shippers. We might say they put the finishing touches on the virtual monopoly we see today.
What does my Liberal colleague have to say about that?
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. gentleman just never lets the facts get in the way of good twisted ideology.
The fact is that in 1995, the issue that was largely before the railway community and the shipping community was a question about costing. The last costing review was done in about 1992. Through the 1990s that was the question the shipping community was concerned about: a costing review; were the revenues being raised; were they accurately measured; were they properly distributed among the various participants in the value chain.
The discussion about level of service began in earnest in the mid-2000s. It was a focus of debate, particularly, starting in 2006-2007. There was legislation going through Parliament at about that time. The shipping community said that it would like to have the level of service issue attached to the legislation the government had brought in, I believe, in 2006 and was dealing with in 2007. The government's response to that was, “We'll deal with the level of service complaints at a later stage”, and that is what produced the panel, which started in 2008-2009.
The hon. gentleman is just factually incorrect with the rant that he has made.
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I disagree strongly with my Liberal colleague, who is trying to sweep Liberal involvement in the current crisis under the rug.
I can understand that in 1995 the Liberals had their own reasons for privatizing CN, although I do not think the Canadian public came out on the winning side.
The Liberals, however, had until 2006 to solve the problems that are still haunting the railways, both CN and CP, and they did nothing.
What do they have to say? Will they still say that privatization justified the crisis they created over 11 years?
I repeat: the privatization took place in 1995 but they had until 2006 and they did nothing.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will get the hon. gentleman a calendar if that would help.
The focus in the 1990s was the costing review. The focus in 2006-2007 was the level of service review. The nature of the issue had transformed in the intervening years.
Quite frankly, the issue of private ownership or public ownership of the railways is, in these circumstances, entirely irrelevant. The shippers have had complaints about both sides of the equation, both the privately-owned railway, and while it was still in the public domain, the publicly owned railway. The point is that the ownership structure of the railway has proven to be irrelevant on the question of level of service.
At the moment, if we asked the shippers, they would be discrete in answering, but they would say that they are getting a better level of service from CN than from CP. There were times in the past when that was flipped around, but at the moment I think they would give CN credit for actually having tried to address the issue more effectively than CP has.
The bottom line is that shippers on both types of railways do not believe the level of service is up to snuff where it should be, which is why they were hoping for more effective legislation.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question about history as well.
I would like the member for Wascana to tie in what happened in the nineties and the first decade of this century to what happened in the eighties with the changing of the Crow's Nest freight rate. How may that have affected, positively or negatively, rail freight services throughout the country?
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to what historically was called the “Crow's Nest rate” is that it ran into a serious impediment in the mid-1990s with the new World Trade Organization, which explicitly ruled that this form of structure in our freight rates constituted an illegal subsidy for the future. Accordingly, the government had to react with changes that provided a period of compensation for the loss of the subsidized rate and it tried to put the system on a more commercial basis for the long term into the future.
That was a very difficult transition for farmers. Those in the farming community in our country deserve a great deal of credit for having the strength and ingenuity to work their way through that period of great change and emerge successfully at the other side. However, they now need fair legislation that will give them the service they are paying for, and that is why Bill C-52 should be better than it is.
Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, I take great interest in the debate this evening, as well as a bit of pride, because this legislation is very close to me. I was in charge of the railways at the time when the rail freight service review was happening and on behalf of the government, I was able to introduce the announcement to initiate this legislation.
Here we are going into third reading, which is great not only for the House but for the country because all parties are indicating their support for the legislation. It is a great legislation for a lot of reasons.
I will start with why it is here and why we need the legislation. I would like to go back a bit and explain to the House and Canadians what the problem really was.
At the time when I was put in charge of railways, in western Canada the on-time delivery for CN's cars was about 52% to 55% for grain shipments. That is not a good performance. How could western Canadian farmers get their products from the combine to the port and off to international markets when they could only rely on the cars being there at the proper time 55% of the time?
As my hon. colleague from Wascana mentioned, during the review CN upped its game considerably. New management came into CN and really concentrated on trying to up its game at the time, and it did. It went from 55% to over 90% within about a year to a year and a half period. That was strictly because the spotlight was on it and it put full attention toward upping its service because the service review was taking place.
A lot of the shippers came to us and asked that we keep the review going and keep the spotlight on the industries and the railways so they would up the game. We encouraged them to continue to have service agreements with all their shippers. They committed to doing that and signed as many shipping service agreements as they possibly could. In fact, I know there were some in some of the industries, perhaps the coal industry, for over a decade, so there were some long-term agreements that were signed at that time.
This legislation does not really speak to the agreements. That is intentional because they are so diverse. Producers cars would have a completely different need and service agreement than would shipping of a coal, potash or forest industries. However, they all want service. Under this legislation, those agreements would be totally flexible because they could contain all kinds of penalties. We are not privy to what the agreements are. We do not need to know what they are. However, when the two parties come to an agreement, they need to have some kind of mechanism to do things.
The first is to ensure that whatever agreement they do reach is complied with. That is what this legislation does. It has penalties that would go to either a shipper or a railway depending on which one breaches the agreement.
The second is there for when an agreement cannot be reached. If negotiations between the shipper, the railway, and so forth are done to the best of their ability, whether in the forest, egg, coal or potash industry, whatever the commodity, yet they cannot come to an agreement, then they are really stuck. This legislation is a way for them to reach a final arbitrated settlement that would give them clarity as to what was fair in an agreement. That is what the industry and the shippers have asked for.
Instead of being held ransom and saying they cannot come up with an agreement because no one wants to negotiate, they are saying, with this legislation, that if they cannot come to an agreement, there will be an arbitrated settlement. It does not say who is going to win or lose in that arbitration. Rather it calls for that to happen. Because of that, there will be a better system all the way around. If we go through the rail service review data carefully, as did the committee and the government, there was a lot of blame on both the shipper and the railway sides.
Let us not pick winners or losers. Let us just fix it in the best interests of this country. That is what this House is all about. It is about designing a piece of legislation that will move the country along. We do not really care who wins or loses. We want it to be fair so that both win. Canada wins because we move product to shore and on to international markets, where the real win is for the railways, the shippers and the country. That is why this should be supported.
International trade is really our stimulus for the future. We just came through a tremendous economic recession that has challenged the world. It challenged North America. It challenged the United States, our largest trading partner. Last year we had $528 billion in trade. Three-way trade between Mexico, Canada and the United States is almost $1 trillion per year. That is a large number, when we start talking about trillions of dollars.
About 40 million jobs have been created in our country because of NAFTA. I love the map at the Canadian embassy in the United States. The map shows for each state the number of dollars traded with Canada and the number of jobs created in that state because of that trade. It is very effective information that our American cousins need to understand more directly. Canadians also need to understand it. The number of dollars traded and the number of jobs created in each province is also on that map. I would recommend it to anyone.
Why do I mention that? It is because one of every five jobs in Canada is created because of trade, because of exports. Sixty per cent of our GDP is from that trade. Is it growing or is it shrinking? The last statistics I saw show a 73% increase in trade internationally between now and 2025. That is a large number. Those countries that capitalize on that growth in trade are the ones that are going to win. I like the way we are positioned to capitalize on that. We are about to sign a European free trade agreement, which I hope will work. That is 500 million people and $17 trillion in GDP in that market that we will be able to capitalize on. Not only that, but when we go to the west coast, with the trans-Pacific partnership, we will be talking about 110 million people and GDP of $17.6 trillion.
These are tremendous opportunities, not only with respect to China and India but with the trans-Pacific partners. It will depend on what we have to offer those markets. We are also working on a bilateral trade agreement with Japan. We are working on more trade with China. China is a big player, particularly when it comes to railways and moving products to the west coast.
What do they want? They want two things: food security and energy security. Canada can provide both, and railways are a major part of that. Before railways and shippers start saying negative things about each other, why do both groups not look at the opportunity before us? Why do we not look at the opportunity before Canada? Never has the opportunity been greater to create a winning situation for Canadian industries. It might be products manufactured and moved back and forth by rail, as we do with United States when we move automobiles back and forth by rail. We can actually supply for the United States products coming from China through the port of Prince Rupert two and a half days faster than any other port on the west coast. It is two and a half days faster, because it comes through Prince Rupert and goes right down to Chicago to supply the largest economy in the world: the United States. It is because of our railways and our system.
People have been criticizing this piece of legislation and asking why we did not include shipments to the United States in this rail service agreement. I can say that the United States is looking very closely at this piece of legislation. Americans are wondering how it is working, what kind of support it is getting and if it is going to actually do the job. I believe that it will do the job. The Americans are very keen to look at it and perhaps even use it as a model for their country. When that happens, there will be a continuous system between Canada and the United States, which is our largest trading partner and always will be.
This is a great piece of legislation for many reasons. When we look at the international markets, it is indeed amazing.
The railways carry a tremendous amount of freight, about 240 million tonnes of freight. About 70% of the surface freight in this country is moved by rail. That includes the bulk commodities such as grains, minerals, forestry products, energy products and so on.
I was talking to a representative of CN last night. He was telling me that the number of cars they are ordering to supply energy to markets by rail is off the charts. That is happening because of the resistance to pipelines. Whether or not the pipelines come, there is no question that rail will play a big part in moving our energy products to shore and beyond.
It is very important that this piece of legislation work not only for the agriculture sector, for grains and seeds, but for the energy sector, mining, potash and so on. It is a great piece of legislation that would go a long way in making certain that we level the playing field.
My hon. colleague said that CN used to be one of the worst as far as providing service. I would tend to agree with him. Perhaps now the reverse is happening, and CP is having more of a struggle providing service than CN. That is hard to argue with, and it is probably true.
We have heard arguments from the president of CN. He is asking why we are bringing in this legislation. He says that it will halt negotiations and drive people away from the negotiating table. It would do just the opposite. It would drive people to the negotiating table, because if they did not get a service agreement, there would be a very quick arbitration process in place through this legislation that would actually make sure they got a deal. That is what the legislation is designed to do. That is why it would work so well.
Would it be used an awful lot? Probably not. I hope not. I hope it is never used. If we bring it in, the jig is up. There should be an arbitrated settlement. If there is not, somebody will do it for them. They will do it quickly, and it will not cost a lot of money. Once the process has been challenged, a precedent will be set. The rest will fall in line with it, and the service agreements will comply.
I do not believe that this piece of legislation will be used terribly much, but it needs to be there, because the manager of CN or CP may not always be the most friendly guy who always wants to do the right thing. When we bring in legislation, it is for a long period and it is in the best interests of the country. It has nothing to do with the personalities of the people who were there.
I remember the forest industry. We were within hours of finalizing an agreement with the forest sector of this country. We brought them to the table. We did everything we possibly could to get them over the line. We could not quite get there. We would get there now, because we would have a piece of legislation that would arbitrate it. I will not say who would win or lose in that arbitration, because I do not know, but I do know that there would be an arbitrated settlement and they would move on.
It is really important that cars are placed in yards at the appropriate time for product to move from where it is produced to the market. That is the number one thing we can do to create the kind of economy, jobs and prosperity this country needs to move forward.
A lot has been said about the penalties that would go to the government. That is because we do not want winners or losers to use this piece of legislation other than as a tool to make certain that services are provided at the appropriate time.
There could be all kinds of penalties within their service agreements if the parties agreed to them. If the agreements were not recognized and not realized, the penalties would be a tool to make sure the service agreement was complied with.
It is a very great day for me. This has been a long process. It is a process that has had a lot of consultation.
I have quotes here from the agricultural, forestry, coal, potash and mining industries that say that this is a very big step in changing the dynamic between the railways and the shippers. They feel that they have a government that will back them in an arbitrated settlement process that does not play one against the other. It is truly there to try to make certain that an agreement works for both and that the service is provided in an appropriate way. Predictable service is something we cannot talk enough about. Unpredictable service is the number one thing that will retard the opportunity for shippers to be prosperous and get their products to market.
I want to commend the standing committee on transport. It worked very hard over a number of years to make this happen. The Minister of Transport has picked this ball up and has pushed it very hard. He has worked very hard to bring this to where it is tonight.
Tonight is a wonderful evening. Think about it. When was the last time we had a substantive piece of legislation such as this that was agreed upon by everyone in the House? I can think back a long time. I know that there have been frivolous pieces of legislation that perhaps have had unanimous consent, but there have not been major pieces of legislation like this that are paradigm shifters that would change the dynamic. It is probably the most significant piece of legislation to come between shippers and railways in 50 years or more, so this is a very significant evening. It is a significant piece of legislation.
I am very proud to be lending my voice to it, and I look forward to the vote, which I hope will happen tomorrow. We will move it into the Senate and on to royal assent very quickly.
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I asked this question of his Conservative colleague earlier, but the answer I got was not very satisfying. In fact, I did not get an answer to my question. I will ask it again.
Since CN made a profit of $2.7 billion last year, do the Conservatives really think that a $100,000 penalty is going to change the way the company operates?
Personally, I do not think so, but perhaps the Conservatives have a different answer.
Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, he is asking if the penalties are large enough to force compliance. It is $100,000 for every car that is not there on time, which is a fairly significant penalty. If it is not, we might have to go back and raise it.
I believe that it is significant enough. There is no one I know in the railway industry who would say that they would just pay the $100,000 and forget to bring the cars. I do not believe the railways will play that card. If that happens, there is an opportunity to go back and address it, but I would not do it at this stage of the game.
What is done for one is the same for the other. The penalty can be for the shipper as well as the railway. It is fair to say that it is a fairly significant penalty for every violation under this act. I do not expect that it is going to happen, but there are all kinds of tools to address it if it does happen.
There is an opening up of the entire railway act coming in 2015-16, so I do not believe that the railways are going to play silly with this piece of legislation. They will try to comply, because it is in their best interests to do so. It is in their best interest to make certain that they have the cars there appropriately and that the service agreements are fair for both. The shippers have to win for the railways to win, and the railways have to win for the shippers to win. If both win—
Fair Rail Freight Service ActGovernment Orders
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I agree with much of what the hon. member said. It has already been indicated that the Liberals will vote in favour of the bill.
However, he gives extraordinarily short shrift to a central point made by my colleague from Wascana, and that is that what the shippers want is to be compensated if they are badly served by the railway. For example, if the railway is late or loses the goods and it costs the shipper $1 million, and it is judged to be so, the shipper should be compensated for that $1 million to overcome the loss. The shipper would not then be a winner or a loser. The loss incurred by the shipper would be offset by the compensation.
For the bill to simply say that instead of compensating the shipper, the railway would pay the government, for no apparent reason, weakens it considerably. Why does the government do not include the principle of compensation?
